MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
Players don't come to the net because on the rare times that they do, they get passed easily.
Why do you think it died out?
Has net skill gotten worse gen to gen?
- Thread starter SinneGOAT
- Start date
Why do you think it died out?
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
I think it’s about equipment differences, but not the ones everybody is talking about.
1. Poly strings (not because passing is easier, but because volleying with precisely controlled launch angle is harder with stringbed that has mains that slide laterally).
2. Controlling the depth of volleys is much more difficult with racquets that don’t have lots of mass in the upper part of the handle. The extra mass makes the head come forward when you punch the handle, and it also crisps up the impact with shorter dwell time for better launch angle accuracy.
3. Volleys are harder with lower swingweight with less mass in the head.
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah I'm not saying otherwise.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
But the only reason you can reach the ball to hit a pass is because your opponent butchered his low first volley.
Crazy Finn
Hall of Fame
Interesting. Hadn't thought about that.
Jaitock1991
Hall of Fame
Evolution of the game(mostly due to racquet technology) has turned net play into more of an effective "finish a point you're already massively favoured to win" kind of strategy rather than a basic building block of someone's game(a la what would regularly be the case a few decades ago).
Not saying that the players of the past weren't better volleyers and in general significantly more skilled at the net than current players. They definitely were, as this style if executed well was a title winning strategy back then. But even the best volleyers the game has ever seen would struggle to put away balls with consistency when 3500 rpm forehands are continuously coming for your shoelaces at 80 mph.
The crazy amount of spin that modern racquets allow players to put on the ball(without sacrificing ball velocity) enables them to put the volleyer into impossible situations where hitting anything other than a defensive/passive volley would demand almost miraculous skills. And, needless to say, nobody is capable of doing that over the course of an entire match, much less several matches. Hence in today's environment it's mostly reduced to a strategy that should only be employed when you're clearly in an advantegeous position within the point, and you're looking to close in on an opponent that is not in a position to hit an aggressive shot. Your only objective will be to finish the point, preferably with one easy volley, as your opponent will have no chance of chasing it down.
Not saying that the players of the past weren't better volleyers and in general significantly more skilled at the net than current players. They definitely were, as this style if executed well was a title winning strategy back then. But even the best volleyers the game has ever seen would struggle to put away balls with consistency when 3500 rpm forehands are continuously coming for your shoelaces at 80 mph.
The crazy amount of spin that modern racquets allow players to put on the ball(without sacrificing ball velocity) enables them to put the volleyer into impossible situations where hitting anything other than a defensive/passive volley would demand almost miraculous skills. And, needless to say, nobody is capable of doing that over the course of an entire match, much less several matches. Hence in today's environment it's mostly reduced to a strategy that should only be employed when you're clearly in an advantegeous position within the point, and you're looking to close in on an opponent that is not in a position to hit an aggressive shot. Your only objective will be to finish the point, preferably with one easy volley, as your opponent will have no chance of chasing it down.
Last edited:
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
What majority wants does not make it better. It is simply tough to identify an approach opportunity and get to net in time (and position yourself correctly) to make volleys. Mischa Zverev beat Murray doing that without even any amazing groundstrokes. And it's not a fluke. Stepanek took Djokovic to four sets at Wimbledon. It's doable but the skill is gone, baby.
Cashman
Hall of Fame
That is not my experience, especially in doubles.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
You've been missed on TTW. Where have you been?
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
I am more active on O&E. I pop in once in a while here. Kinda real busy with work these days. And usually, I take one look at the topics on GPP and it's the same old debates so I switch off, lol.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Can't blame you, LOL.
Cashman
Hall of Fame
Volleys are icing these days. Most of the disadvantages of staying at the baseline have been eliminated over the years, by technology and surface changes, so players get more out of improving that aspect of their game than investing in serve and volley.
As more and more players have become one-dimensional baseliners, scarcity has increased the value of net play and given it a bit of a resurgence. But it will never rise back to the top.
Really, Djokovic has solved modern tennis from a matchup perspective. Everything about his game style is high-percentage, there are no real trade-offs. Not everyone growing up now is a Djokovic clone, but they all play the same basic style.
If the game is going to return to being a clash of styles then there needs to be a fundamental change.
Whilst I agree that that virtually none of the current pros are capable of making good low volleys, it's also the case that even if they could volley like Edberg, those same volleys that used to skip through through the court now sit up and just beg to be hit. Slow, gritty, high bouncing hard courts just really give a big advantage to the baseliners.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
I would agree with that about slow hardcourt. But I was surprised to discover how easy it is to serve-and-volley on clay. On clay, if you can reliably serve hard with heavy spin, the returner has no choice but to make contact from pretty deep behind the baseline due to the high variance in bounce angle. This gives the server ample time to close to an offensive position for the first volley.
"Has net skill gotten worse gen to gen?"
Good question. I think the young players lack speed, anticipation and reflex to compare to the older ones. My take is that there's a lot of pressure on baseline to baseline work as there are plenty of sophisticated top spin hitters and rallies with balls going far behind these days. Even the U12, U14, U16, to my knowledge is experiencing the trend.
Good question. I think the young players lack speed, anticipation and reflex to compare to the older ones. My take is that there's a lot of pressure on baseline to baseline work as there are plenty of sophisticated top spin hitters and rallies with balls going far behind these days. Even the U12, U14, U16, to my knowledge is experiencing the trend.
In a previous life, I actually had the biggest win of not illustrious career .. on clay. Shhh.. don't tell anyone.
But just because you have time to get in towards the net, doesn't mean you can make a volley that doesn't sit up and invite to be belted almost anywhere with 100 square inches of poly.
I don't think that's a problem on clay, but it also describes every other tournament on the planet .. including Wimbledon.
6august
Hall of Fame
It's Exactly Evolution.
Evolution means change to adapt. At the very very beginning, serve and volley was played because it's impossible to outgrind your opponent with a claymore-weight racquet and in a tuxedo. The next Gen doesn't come to the net because it's not a smart choice, Not because they are not talented enough to do it.
Why do you think Federer came to the net less after his first Wimbledon? Because his talent vanishes? Or he, just like everyone else, simply chose the game that worked?
Saying it as the biggest Sampras fan ever.
))
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
But we saw Fed switch back to a more all court style from 2014. And even Nadal and Djokovic have increased their net play in recent years to cut points short. I think the difference is they all have a good sense of identifying balls that are approachable. The next gen has been over coached in baseline slugging and are probably used to beating players all the time merely by out rallying them and not by having to work them until an opportunity to sneak up is created. Of all of them, ADM has very good volleying skills. Because he is too small to depend only on overpowering opponents and has to outplay rather than outhit them.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
But Fed switched back to more all court from 2014 and Nadal and Djokovic volley more than they used to as well. They realized that being efficient and shortening points where possible would help prolong their career. As Next Gen don't have to think about that yet, they are content to hang back. But they keep losing by hanging back, so it's not working. Maybe cut down prize money for lower rounds again so they get a kick to "get your ass off the baseline" as Lendl told Murray.
6august
Hall of Fame
The point here is, they do it at a particular stage in their career, when they all have huge mileage and their bodies are already vulnerable. When they were at their absolute peak, vs strongest opponents, they did NOT do it.
In my judgement, next Gen's volley skill is decent considering the context. Thiem, Medvedev, Tsitsipas... obviously they're all taught how to volley.
The biggest difference between a profesional and an amateur is a pro does what he needs while an amateur does what he likes. Coming to the net nowadays is a gamble. Pros don't gamble. We should appreciate it. ))
beard
Legend
So, your wishes are more important than wishes of majority? That's childish, you know?
I value exiting tennis. But what is exiting to see may depend on the rally. Some players look in their opponents' holes while others in their rivals' mistakes. Perhaps the future of tennis will be determined by how many tickets to tennis matches will be sold, or perhaps by how long will the matches last.
onehandbh
G.O.A.T.
Not everyone is like you. Some people prefer making their choices based on websites they read and youtube videos instead of doctors and other trained experts.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
No, I am saying what is better is a matter of tennis skills and not majority opinions. For eg, Djokovic himself is a far better player than Zverev because he is well rounded. This is not about Djokovic so don't be so thin skinned. The next gen like Zverev or Rublev are extremely one dimensional.So, your wishes are more important than wishes of majority? That's childish, you know?
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
So where then are Tsitsipas's slam finals? At least Thiem has a slam and Medvedev has been to a final. What does Sissy have to show for it if his game is complete? It's not and his power isn't quite enough to dominate from the baseline so he would do well to move in more often. Use that damn slice to approach and not just when you're stretched too wide to hit a topspin backhand.
First, I want you to know that your post and mine are both true. It is lower percentage play to attack the net secondary to those strings. The one thing you are not calculating for is an increase in volley errors because the sweet spot was so much smaller and even the smallest of misjudgments meant an error because more often none of the ball hit the sweetspot. A big part of the tactics back against a volleyer then had nothing to do with hitting clean passing shots which were relatively low percentage for the risk until a clear opening showed up. It was about mixing pace and spin to induce ERRORS on the volley, or move the volleyer out of positions with 'pass' number one, then open up the angle with a lob, and then pass with the hole you created. And none of those shots needed to be out of reach to increase the chance of winning the point because each one had a likelyhood of inducing a volley error if the volley miscued at all. Not true now. The racket size and sweet spot size makes not going for the winner riskier because the volley winner is more likely with increased power and control outside the dead center of the racket. Those low slices to the volley were all about forcing difficult defensive volleys because reduced the pace off which the volley was hit, and they got a lot of errors if anything was slightly off.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
As you said upthread, it's all about ball identification. The next gen does not pounce on opportunities to convert shortish balls into approaches or somewhat loopy, slow ones into volleys. Good volleyers back in the day used to do that all the time. After the marathon AO 2012 final, it was observed in an article that as titanic as Nadal and Djokovic may have been, taking a leaf out of Vika's book (the women's title winner that year) in picking loopy balls out of the air with swing volleys would have saved them time. They embraced that lesson in recent years.
There was a weird orthodoxy in men's tennis against swing volleys for a long time which too may have affected how the next gen were coached. Once during Chennai Open, I heard Ashok Amritraj sneer at swing volleys suggesting it was a girls shot or some such nonsense.
junior74
Bionic Poster
Yes, racquet technology absolutely affects all parts of the game. I was taught to serve and volley when I grew up. I have an old PS85, and when I volley with that racquet, I smile - superb precision. I don't agree it's better to volley with a Pure Drive. Yes, the risk of mishit is reduced, but the level of accuracy is so low, your confidence in coming to the net is the aspect that is reduced the most...
Few players dare come in unless the opponent is practically out of the point already. Young players don't rehearse volleys very much these days, and they don't need "the first volley" which was the most important one back in the day.
I'll just add that it is interesting how the pro tennis culture funnels to the rec player.
All the rec doubles I play, most players play staggered and will stay back instead unless drawn/forced in. Rare to see a S and V or chip and charge. Duke it out from the back.
In rec singles, serve and volleye'rs are virtually extinct.
Guys will blast mid court shots often to retreat back if they didn't hit a clean winner or error.
Yet in the main rec level say 3.0-4.0, S and V could still be effective and guys should be pushing forward in dubs. But I think the tennis culture has seeped down that tennis is played from the back court unless pulled forward.
After debate of what is the greatest generation of tennis player, my one buddy has been inspired to serve and volley in singles. For years we just duked it out from the back court. He'd serve and stay back trying to crush it from the baseline. What seemed to be neutralizing returns from me--deep down the middle have become fodder when he comes in. So what seemed like a safe return is no good and now I have to chose a lane. I have to play a riskier shot. It's a new challenge but I think on the rec level even with poly it can still be effective.
The one guy in our doubles group who frustrates us is the one guy who routinely chips and charges and routinely serves and volleys. Our big drives are cut short with angled volleys and when he volleys deep time is taken away making it harder to continue the baseline slugfest we are used to.
Oddly, maybe if net play/s and V/Chip and charge were emphasized more in rec tennis/grass roots tennis, it might funnel up one day?
All the rec doubles I play, most players play staggered and will stay back instead unless drawn/forced in. Rare to see a S and V or chip and charge. Duke it out from the back.
In rec singles, serve and volleye'rs are virtually extinct.
Guys will blast mid court shots often to retreat back if they didn't hit a clean winner or error.
Yet in the main rec level say 3.0-4.0, S and V could still be effective and guys should be pushing forward in dubs. But I think the tennis culture has seeped down that tennis is played from the back court unless pulled forward.
After debate of what is the greatest generation of tennis player, my one buddy has been inspired to serve and volley in singles. For years we just duked it out from the back court. He'd serve and stay back trying to crush it from the baseline. What seemed to be neutralizing returns from me--deep down the middle have become fodder when he comes in. So what seemed like a safe return is no good and now I have to chose a lane. I have to play a riskier shot. It's a new challenge but I think on the rec level even with poly it can still be effective.
The one guy in our doubles group who frustrates us is the one guy who routinely chips and charges and routinely serves and volleys. Our big drives are cut short with angled volleys and when he volleys deep time is taken away making it harder to continue the baseline slugfest we are used to.
Oddly, maybe if net play/s and V/Chip and charge were emphasized more in rec tennis/grass roots tennis, it might funnel up one day?
6august
Hall of Fame
I don't say Sissy (or Tim and Danil) is complete. What I mean is very clear:
1. Volley has been being less and less important. If it still works, no way pros abaddon it.
2. Thus, players must focus more on what is important (ground game).
3. In that context, volley skill of many players can be considered to be good.
4. If a modern player doesn't suceed, it means his ground game is not good enough, not his volley.
Even as a Pete fan, I have to say he would have a lot of trouble with passing shots come from a Luxilon stringbed.
Crazy Finn
Hall of Fame
Don't have to wonder, just go back and watch the USO Finals in 2000 and 2001.
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
In my club in Southern California, the style of doubles on the slow hard courts is very level-dependent. At 5.5 and 5.0, the serves are 100mph+ and the servers typically S/V, but the return teams play 2-back often on 1st serves and 1-back on 2nd serves. At 4.5 and high 4.0, servers S/V and returners C/C so that almost all points are played at the net. At mid-4.0 and below, it is mostly 1-back for both servers and returners with very few players trying to come to net quickly.
It seems that at mid-4.0 and below, players don’t have confidence in their net game and tend to stay back after serves and returns - there are also less poaches, more lobs and almost no signaled serve locations or intentional poaches. At high 4.0 and 4.5, the players in doubles mostly play at the net as they have the serve, return and volley skills to do so effectively. The net players also use signals for serve locations and intentional poaches. Once you get even more advanced at 5.0 and 5.5, the serves are so big that the returners are forced to play back and will come to net only if they are able to hit very good approach shots or lobs.
In 40+ age group singles, I would say that about 15%-20% of players at 4.5+ levels are serve-and-volleyers who will also chip/charge and come to net. But, once you get to the younger age group of 4.5+ players who grew up with poly, those who play only S/V in singles are non-existent. However, most of the good players who have undergone a lot of coaching have solid volley skills and have no issues finishing points at the net especially if they play doubles also. I don’t know what styles predominate at 4.0 singles and below, but I’m guessing that baseline pushers win the most.
Last edited:
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
And maybe looking at the 2001 semi where Sampras easily prevailed over Safin would also be useful in not putting too much emphasis on a small data point.
McGradey
Hall of Fame
I’ve had a similar experience with a buddy who’s become more aggressive with his serve and volley game.
I used to play him very close and win 1/3 sets, now he’s creaming me regularly and he’s approaching the net a lot more often.
And this is after I’ve improved my baseline game, fitness, returns—and seen results vs everyone else.
Net play can still be very effective at the rec level. This guy would I presume be 4.5 comfortably, his serve, movement, forehand and net game are excellent. 1HBH is attackable but he tends to protect it very well.
Crazy Finn
Hall of Fame
I was providing some examples where Sampras had some trouble with younger players playing with polys and hitting passing shots, that’s all. I especially this in remember the Hewitt final.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
And my point is he defeated those same players when he didn't have to come back from Super Saturday. He was just tired in the finals. I don't think he would beat Hewitt with ease in the final even with a Friday semi but that wasn't just about poly. Hewitt was also super fast and an incredible hustler at that time which generally made him kryptonite for the then aging serve-volley greats.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
Or watching over-the-hill washed-up pudgy Pete totally demolish young Roddick with a S&V lesson in 2002 US quarters.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Yup. He literally looked a little overweight in 2002 and still got to Rod's passes with effortful lunges.
Crazy Finn
Hall of Fame
So, basically...
Pete wins - he’s great. Pete loses - excuses.
Pete wins - he’s great. Pete loses - excuses.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Roddick had an injury in that match.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
And what are your excuses for defending champion Safin losing in straight sets to Sampras "unable to handle passing shots of modern players"? All I said was you were focusing too much on a single data point which doesn't mean all that you think it does.
Crazy Finn
Hall of Fame
Well...
- on the first point, that's just Safin being Safin. He was consistently inconsistent. That defined his career. I'm not making excuses for him.
- secondly, I never focused on these single data points and never suggested that they meant THAT MUCH. I really don't know why you're making such a big point out of this when I didn't. A point was brought up wondered if Sampras would have trouble handling passing shots by younger players with poly strings. This point was not made by me, but I simply recalled two matches in which this definitely occurred. That's all I did. Those matches definitely happened. That's all. I didn't suggest any deep meaning to this, or that Sampras would have been constantly doomed against the pace and spin that these younger players seemed to generate with these "cheater" string. He seemed to have some trouble with them at times, others times, less so. Also, he was older and not peak Pete anymore, regardless. I never suggested that Safin and Hewitt are greater players than Sampras. He seemed to still beat Agassi, pretty regularly - even during this period - which was always annoying to me. I'm not sure when Agassi started using polys, but Pete generally did well in any case. You're the one reading far more into my simple statements than there is.
Anyway, those finals will always be fond memories for me.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Er no, somebody opined as to whether he would struggle against Luxilon stringbeds and you said one doesn't have to wonder, just watch those two finals. So you presented those matches as categorical evidence that passing shots hit with poly would make Sampras struggle. And I have pointed out to you that Sampras beat Hewitt at USO 2000 and Safin at USO 2001. So it's not so clear cut as you think. And remember Sampras serve was spinny as hell even with gut so it would be a monster with poly and he could continue to set up S&V plays successfully. Those matches don't establish anything beyond that Sampras was too old for the Super Saturday-Sunday routine and fell flat in the finals. When you are serving below 50% on second serve, it doesn't matter what strings your opponent has, you're just not playing championship tennis. It's no wonder he got burned in both finals.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah Pete laid eggs in those two finals - anyone who actually watched them saw that. His serving arm just looked dead. Too old... until he got an age-defying adrenaline boost by seeing his pigeon (who was older than him) made it to the 2002 final.
Crazy Finn
Hall of Fame
Well, whatever excuse or reason you want to console yourself with, I did enjoy seeing Pete get repeated passed during those matches. It wasn’t a common sight and I enjoyed it.
Maybe it was he was old, maybe his arm was dead, maybe the youngsters could get a bit more dip on those passing shots, maybe he was a step slow after playing the previous day. Probably, a bit of all those.
Rovesciarete
Hall of Fame
Frankly the stats indicate that there is an trend towards more net game. We will not return to the olden days of S&V but we are seeing more variety then five years ago. Of course the next steps will depend on how successfull this sprinkle of volleys will be...
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
One thing that gets forgotten... not long after Pete retired, they changed the US Open schedule to play final on Monday. This helped out over-30 guys to rack up more titles.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Again, in typical TT fashion, you're making it all about fandom. Dude the Bastl loss was far worse than either of these. I don't need consolation. I am simply saying again, and for the last time, that the losses don't mean all that you're trying to read into them.
Similar threads
